Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2006-23805-R-1 Montgomery

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds a reduction in the assessment of the
property as established by the Cook County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 3,749
IMPR.: $ 13,233
TOTAL: $ 16,982
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/MKB/6-09
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Keesha E. Montgomery
DOCKET NO.: 06-23805.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 19-36-120-057-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Keesha E. Montgomery, the appellant; and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a 47-year old, one-story style dwelling of masonry construction containing 1,203 square feet of living area with a full, unfinished basement and central air conditioning.
The appellant submitted evidence before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming overvaluation and unequal treatment in the assessment process as the bases of the appeal. In support of the equity argument, the appellant submitted a grid analysis detailing four suggested comparable properties located one block from the subject property. The comparables are one-story masonry or frame and masonry dwellings that are 46 or 51 years old. They have basements and one has a garage. The comparables range in size from 1,330 to 1,482 square feet of living area and have improvement assessments ranging from $3.52 to $11.24 per square foot. The subject property has an improvement assessment of $12.87 per square foot. These same comparables had land sizes of 3,125 or 3,672 square feet and land assessments of $.76 or $1.00 per square foot. The subject has a land size of 3,750 square feet and a land assessment of $1.00 per square foot. To document the appeal, the appellant submitted the property characteristic sheets and photographs of the subject property and the comparable properties to demonstrate their comparability. Based on this evidence, the appellant requested a reduction in the subject's assessment.
With respect to the overvaluation claim, the appellant submitted data evidencing the subject's September 2005 sale price of $260,000.
The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject's final assessment of $19,233 was